Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1887-03-17
REPLY TO FAIR PLAY"

nor the decision of the supreme
court in the contested election
case from Canadian district in
which Hon. John T. Drew dis
sented and Judge Mayes rendered
the decision declaring the Office
vacant and ordered a new election
in the case of Woodall VS.. Hilder-
brand, in which case plaintiff
(WoodalD claimed that he was
entitled to the Office of district
judge of Canadian, which Office
was awarded to Hilderbrand in
The last district election, he re-
ceiving the highest number Of
votes for that office.
The claim that Woodall put up
TO the Office through his attorney,
Scales, was that all the judges of
election did not sign the returns at
the Monroe precinct, said returns
being signed by only one of the
judges. Woodall never claimed
that any part of the election was
conducted irregularly in the man.
ner that Hilderbrand obtained his
election by bribery, fraud, intimi-
dation or collusion, with or by the
officers conducting the election,
which are the only causes in law
by which Woodall could possibly
claim the Office, (please see Sec.
80, page 112, compiled laws).
Now, please ask ''Fair Play" to
read Sec. Is, page 40, compiled
laws-if he thinks he is capable of
reading and understanding. He
will then see where Judge Mayes
got his authority for declaring the
Office vacant and ordering a new
election. The court through Mayes
chief justice took the position that
there was no evidence to show,
neither did .Woodall claim that
there had been any willful, illegal
tranaction in conducting the cleo
ton which would be the only
cause by which Woodall could
claim the office, he having the next
highest number of votes, while at
the same time Mayes took the
position that it would not be a safe
policy for q supreme court to in
dorse the election returns in
this incomplete condition, thereby
overlooking the error of all the
judges not signing the election re-
turns which the law expressly says
is a cause for contest.
Yet, as before stated, the omis-
sion or neglect of one judge to sign
the returns did not in law give the
office to Woodall nor did it in
any way authorize the supreme
court to do so, unless there was
fraud, &c, charged and proven
against Hilderbrand, hence you
will see the authority for declaring
the Office vacant. If the court
could have possibly given the
Office to either one of the contest
ants Hilderbrand was the man who
was justly entitled to it.
Now, Mr.. "Fair Play" be care
tul when you wish to do the man
an honor by boasting of Hon.
John Drew's "dissenting" opinion,
claiming that Woodall was entitled
to that office.
AS to Rabbits large farm, As
acres more than Mayes, we have
no objection to that. We would
be glad to see "Fair Play" and
every other citizen do likewise.
We will let every man who has
been fortunate enough to visit
Judge at home speak Of his hospi- |
tality. He will not only furnish |
you with good cider and apples but
every other luxury that is found
on good farm And you will find
Il 10 be as free as the water that
runs in Grand river, notwith-
standing "Fair Plays" myth
about the poor, sick "nigger," as
ne calls him, failing to get shelter.
Now, as to Mayes' clerking on a
on citizenship, / will
-isk the assertion that he did his
luty we'll. believe / can safely |
say that he has done more clerking
or the Cherokee Nation within the
ast twenty years than any other
nan in it. lie was the first clerk
'f the circuit and district courts OF
Jooweescoowee district after the
war, which Office he filled for a
lumber Of years at the pitiful sal
lry Of sixty dollars per year. He
,lerked for the commission on citi-
senship two years at the capital.
He served as chief clerk Of the
council. And yes, oh, yes he
clerked for that senate committee
which showed the dark side of